Debra Dent Leal A/K/A Debbie D. Leal, Tango Transport, Inc. and Tango Transport, LLC v. James Jordan
12-15-00119-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 2, 2015Background
- Plaintiff James Jordan sued defendants Debra Dent Leal and Tango Transport (employer) for injuries from a October 1, 2010 tractor‑trailer collision, seeking damages for pain and suffering and lost earning capacity.
- At deposition Jordan admitted a prior motor‑vehicle accident in 2002 causing neck/back injuries and a period off work; his treating physicians (Drs. Prasad and Gordon) testified at deposition that they were unaware of the 2002 accident and that knowledge of it could have affected their causation opinions.
- Defendants sought to admit Jordan’s 2002‑injury testimony and deposition excerpts of Drs. Prasad and Gordon to show an alternative/partial cause of Jordan’s injuries (pre‑existing condition) and to impeach/clarify damages causation.
- The trial court initially ruled the pre‑existing injury testimony and certain deposition excerpts admissible, but on the first day of trial reversed and excluded evidence regarding the 2002 accident and related medical testimony (except limited references about lost wages).
- During direct examination Jordan answered that he had no prior back problems and never missed work (statements defendants argue created a false impression and therefore "opened the door" to the excluded evidence).
- Defendants appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by excluding relevant evidence about the pre‑existing injury and by refusing to let them use deposition testimony showing the experts’ opinions might have differed if they had known of the 2002 accident; they request reversal and a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of Jordan's 2002 pre‑existing neck/back injuries | Jordan argued the 2002 accident evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial; trial court ultimately sustained objections. | Defendants argued the 2002 injuries were relevant to alternative causation, damages, and to impeach expert opinions; initially allowed but later excluded by the court. | Trial court excluded testimony/evidence regarding the 2002 accident; defendants claim that exclusion was an abuse of discretion and seek reversal. |
| Admission of deposition excerpts of Dr. Ritesh Prasad and Dr. Charles Gordon | Jordan objected to the experts’ deposition excerpts addressing the 2002 accident as irrelevant. | Defendants contend the excerpts were admissible because each expert acknowledged they were unaware of the 2002 accident and that such knowledge could have altered their causation opinions. | Trial court reversed its prior allowance and excluded the experts’ deposition excerpts on relevance grounds; defendants assert the exclusion prejudiced them. |
| Whether Jordan "opened the door" to evidence of the 2002 injury during direct testimony | Jordan maintained his direct testimony (no prior problems/no missed work) was responsive and not an invitation to introduce prior‑accident evidence. | Defendants contend Jordan’s answers created a false impression about his work/medical history and thereby opened the door to admission of the 2002 accident evidence for impeachment/clarification. | Trial court found Jordan had not opened the door and denied defendants’ request to read impeachment deposition testimony into the record. |
| Prejudice / harmfulness of exclusion | Jordan argued exclusion prevented confusing or prejudicial collateral issues from reaching the jury. | Defendants argued exclusion deprived the jury of a plausible alternative cause and expert context; exclusion probably resulted in an improper judgment. | Defendants assert the exclusion was harmful and request a new trial; the brief frames the error as abuse of discretion but the appellate disposition is the relief sought (reversal/new trial). |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams Distrib. Co. v. Franklin, 898 S.W.2d 816 (Tex. 1995) (admissibility of evidence and appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- McGraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1992) (standards on admissibility and materiality)
- Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2007) (trial court’s discretion to admit or exclude evidence)
- Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Crump, 330 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2010) (defense evidence of alternative causation and burden to present plausible factual basis)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (when a party may have "opened the door" to otherwise excluded evidence)